Certainly I'd be more worried about their intentions to sink the US dollar by selling all their reserves held in that currency. A lot cheaper than firing several ICMBs, and much more effective...Regarding the economic warfront, I don't see any tactical advantages for the US here. Imagine the Russians selling all their US dollars, China following them, and bringing the value of a dollar bill cheaper than paper toilet...

But once you have done that once, that's it, the economic weapon has been used, and you've got nothing left. Of course, there's always the threat of using it, or selling off a few million dollars of shares every now and again just to prove the point.

Economic "weapons" are not single use. They're actually usually used in a very long, drawn out way. Kinda like siege warfare. Think of Cuba. They're not really in a bad economic position right from the start, but we "besieged" them after they turned Communist, shutting them off essentially from international trade. And that in turn does hurt a country. Not immediately, but over time.

What Russia could do is dump a bit of its dollar reserves, then hang the Damocletian sword of dumping the rest over the world economy. That would be far more devastating than them simply dumping their reserves, since that would hurt them, too, considerably. Instead, they now make the rest of the world consider not only dumping what they have in USDs but also trying to switch to other currencies and diversify so a single cash dump can't have such an impact.

Now ponder that impact on the USD when the whole world wants to get out of it.

I'm not sure I understand all of this talk of "dumping", or maybe it's the people proposing the action that don't understand it. They can only do 3 things with those bonds, cash them in, sell them to someone else for a loss (dumping?), or burn them.

The first option does nothing, as claiming matured bonds is what you are supposed to do. The third option is awesome, free money.

The second option, if they had enough to kill the world market (which I don't think they do) for US bonds might have an impact, but only if they price very low and somehow managed to keep the US itself from buying them.

The fact of the matter is, as soon as they post 100B in US T-Bills for substantially lower than the market rate someone will buy them all instantly and they will no longer exert pressure on the market for new debt.

I always laugh when someone suggests dumping 162 billion in bonds could crush the US economy. That's literally like 3 days worth of auctions. As you said, they dump them all at once and someone pays 72 billion for them, and over a period of a month doubles their money. Now if they owned the 1.3 trillion that china does they could probably hurt the dollar for a month or two while turning their trillion dollars into a 100 billion. And in the process China would destroy their own export economy as the dollar fell and the trade deficit imploded as US imports stopped.

See that's the problem, they try to "crash" the market and they are guaranteed to lose massive amounts of money on the bonds. And in the long run the bonds recover and there is no long term issue. In the short term it may actually help the US economy by devaluing the dollar short term and harming imports.

And that weaker dollar will reduce our trade deficit by disincentivizing imports and making exports cheaper, increase domestic production and employment, and help ease the significant private debt overhang which is still crippling US economic growth. Oh, and it will help the Fed and Treasury keep rates on US debt even lower for even longer.

Except if they don't take dollars, they get nothing at all. Meanwhile, we have nukes, are net energy and food exporters, and have plenty of natural resources. We have plenty of unemployed that would love to take up the slack when cheap Chionese lablr is no longer accessible to the U.S.

As ugly as it may be, fundamentally the US economy is far more capable of absorbing a major blow like this than the Russian economy. But the direct blow wouldn't be that big for the US. For Europe, on the other hand...

All the US money (bonds and dollars) we have were "printed." Every year that the Federal gov't runs a deficit, it prints that amount of new money. And yet, no inflation crises materializes.

At a huge cost for Americans.

Which Americans? Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc. - especially considering that our economic growth is currently hampered by a persistent debt overhang caused by a deflationary credit crises.

Also, higher inflation will server to reduce the trade deficit by disincentivizing imports in favor of domestic alternatives, and by making our exports cheaper in foreign markets. Both of these effects will increase domestic production and employment.

All common loans (mortgage, credit card, signature loan, auto loan, etc) in the US are fixed principal. E.g. Say you borrow $200,000 for a house, and you get fees tacked on, plus the cost of financing ata fixed rate... you could pay ~3x the original loan but only as a result of compounding. The loan terms never change even if the value of the dollar completely tanks or shoots up. It is a common option to have a variable interest rate, making it possible to have the interest rate tied to the prime rate and have that skyrocket.. which could get me into trouble over the long term of I cannot afford adjusted monthly payments. But otherwise it's the same story: the principal amount is *never* adjusted for the value of the dollar. I'm quite sure that would be illegal (but IANAfinance lawyer), and if it's not, any creditor exercising that kind of option would find their buildings burned down by morning, Venezuela style.

If the value of my work stays steady, a strong dollar actually makes it harder for me to pay my mortgage, but a weak dollar lets me pay off my loans faster. Imho this sort of relationship has a stabilizing effect on the US economy and dollar.

This risk is outdated. With the amount of bond buying that the US Federal Reserve has engaged in over the past few years buying all of the debt held by Russia and China combined would not even make a dent should they desire to sell it all, the FED and other nations (Japan) will happily buy. Russia's $100 billion and even China's $1.2T are small potatoes compared to the $16T+ the fed and friends have printed with little consequence as of yet.

Russia relies on Europe energy sales for 25% of its GDP, Europe relies on Russia to provide 6% of its energy. Sanctions targeting this will hurt Russia very badly and they know it. They have been strong arming Europe for years on energy, delaying their economic recovery. Its time the tables were turned.

The thing is those 6% overwhelmingly go to Germany and other Central-Eastern Europe nations. France has nuclear and the UK had North Sea natural gas. Italy and Spain use North African natural gas. Scandinavia uses coal and natural gas from Norway.

Still Putin chose a bad time to do this since the harshest part of the Winter has already come and gone. If they want to stop using Russian gas now is the best time in the year to start working on it.

With the amount of bond buying that the US Federal Reserve has engaged in over the past few years buying all of the debt held by Russia and China combined would not even make a dent should they desire to sell it all, the FED and other nations (Japan) will happily buy.

At this point I imagine the Fed chair cackling like the Emperor in Star Wars "witness the firepower of this fully operational buying-station!" OK, the new one isn't quite old enough to look like the Emperor yet, but give her time.

Have you thought about the costs to Russia? Such a mass sell off would indeed slaughter the price of the dollar, and thus would cut the value of Russia's greenback reserves enormously. Sure the US and the rest of the global economy would be in agony, but Russia would have cut off its own nose despite its face.

Russia is not some infinitely powerful state. By and large, it's a petro-state, and any move that causes precipitous global economic decline will do it significant damage in the process.

Dont be stupid. Russia holds a mere $200b in treasury bills. Selling them would destabilize Russia more than the US. The US would buy that amount up in a few months. You have to understand the scale of debt - trillions in US debt exist, and 200$b is more like a little wave in a lake.
China is opposed to Russia about the intervention, but they will not act on their opposition.
The American economy is much larger than the Russian, and many other central banks hold way more US debt then the US.

Really? As of last year, Russia held $225 billion in U.S. dollars. So, you think Russia will tank a $17 Trillion dollar economy with $225 billion. I find it helpful to have a sense of perspective when dealing with numbers.

this is not possible,i am from east .
if they do this , their own economy will fall

It would certainly hurt both countries. But arguably Russia could survive in "economic lockdown" easier than the West, it would be like going back to just before glasnost. For the West it would be something unprecedented.

It doesn't help that certain segments of Congress keep talking up Putin like he's the second coming of Alexander the Great. Russia is a broke EX world power. Pushing around pissant satellite states and a spigot on a pipeline are about the extend of their power. We need to treat them that way and stop giving them far more credit than they deserve. All we're doing is emboldening Putin.

The dude goes around shirtless. That should be clue enough he's an attention whore and we all know what happens when you give an attention whore more attention.

Cool, a return to cold war science funding. Bring on the threats, bluffs, and talks of nuclear Armageddon. Maybe they are developing secret weapons that are better than our secret weapons. We need to spend trillions on research or be left behind.

And US propaganda is different how exactly? Because you think the US Government is on the same team as you perhaps?

Issues like this are not singular, but if you are going to call out Russian propaganda then call it out on both sides. US propaganda is portraying Russia in Crimea like the US invasion of Iraq, but it's not even close. I keep waiting for US media to start falsely claiming that Russians are out murdering everyone in the Ukraine and that actually started happening today when reporters were telling stories about people disappearing.

First, look at Crimea from a military strategy point. Russia has had military and naval bases there for decades. If the Philippines had a revolt you are telling me the US would sit and do nothing to protect their military bases there? Come now, you and I both know we would and should. We have those bases for the same reason Russia has bases in Crimea. In fact the US has over 800 [globalresearch.ca] bases (depending on the source over 1,000) and is exerting pressure on not just Russia but China. You would be well suited to read that whole article by the way, since it backs most of my statements.

The US denounces military expansion by other countries, but we continue to expand ourselves. This is in addition of course to drone strikes in dozens of countries, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and funding and providing weapons for the majority of colored revolutions which caused lots of death and destruction.

Next, Crimea was about to be an independent autonomous country free of the Ukraine in May. They tend to side with Russia since Russia has lots of military there, and until Nikita Khrushchev gave the land to the Ukraine was part of Russia. This part gets magically lost by any US media discussing Crimea. I work with many people from Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. They tend to laugh at how bad US propaganda is, and how it portrays very little truth. Eastern Ukraine is pro Russian, and Western Ukraine not so much. What you hear in the US is the Western spin, and what you hear in Russia is Eastern spin. Somewhere in the middle is the population of the Ukraine and Crimea, who want both sides to leave them alone and let them decide their own future.

Let me be very clear, I'm not backing Russia nor do I think Russia is necessarily correct. At the same time, I'm not backing the methods the US has been using for imperialism either.

Didn't we see the most growth in Democracy during times of peace where the US was the example for other countries to follow? We were founded with expressly that concept in mind, we are not supposed to invade or go to war. We are supposed to defend ourselves and be an example for other countries to follow.

We are failing in that regard today, and the increases in turmoil all over the world is in great part due to US meddling and instigating conflicts. Imperialism has changed, where instead of the US taking over a whole territory US and US Friendly businesses take over instead. No need for troops when you control the economy, but making millions off people poor causes lots of resentment.

There are those, myself included, that would consider talking to be a strength.

Right up to getting vaporized, there are several alternative options for stopping nukes that don't involve vaporizing even more innocent civilians. Talking our way out is one of the least hazardous and least expensive methods, and it has the added benefit of being done in parallel with other methods like interception and diversion.

Really? Some madman fires nukes at you because he thinks you think you have a bigger dick than he does. The only way you could have stopped them was to gurantee that you would retaliate, but you decided being a pushover was morally superior, so that didn't happen. The missiles are in the air. How do you stop them?

well said.Unfortunately, this time Europe is more corrupted by Russia.

British are weak, as "Russians are your major investors and bought a couple of football clubs". Besides, I question their army's ability [dailymail.co.uk] to do their trade [thelocal.no].German responce seemed hard, but unfortunately CDU's coalition partner, SPD are in reality russian agents. Former chancellor from that party is now employed by russian gas company. Besides, for russian-german relations it is business as usual [yahoo.com] (LetterOne is russian).France would traditio

It wouldn't matter. A strike the size required to take out the US would doom human kind anyway. It would be more than enough to trigger a nuclear winter. When are talking thousands of warheads, a one or a two at the front if that number really won't make the end result all that different.

Prevailing theory on first strike is that you fire everything you can, targeting not only cities and military installations, but also the nuclear fields of the enemy to try to knock out as much of their ability to strike back as you can. The reason for this is that you assume you will not get a second chance, as the opposing country will answer in kind. You would fire all of your land-based missiles, along with a portion of your sub-launch weapons to get an early first strike on extremely high-value targets. That still leaves you with airborne bombers and, most importantly, the remainder of your SLBMs for 2nd strike. Russian nuclear ballistic subs carry 16-20 SLBMs with 8 warheads each. That's plenty of reserve power.

Ignoring all that: Have you looked at a map recently? The US is big. To have the effect you are talking about a strike that would require hundreds of warheads. That would be more than enough according to Sagan et al.

You're missing the point. If you decide to let a madman wipe off half the planet, he will, and nomatter how much you hate your country or try to satisfy him he's going to do it, unless you say "if you hit me I'll hit you back", then no nukes get fired, because you *ghasp* stood up for yorself and the only thing bullies understand is strength.
I never thought I'd see libs stoop so low to actually sacrifice their lives and the lives of their family for the glory of Mother Russia. SMH

Of course he would. Their missiles and ours have self destructs that can be used mid-flight. Once russia sees the incoming mess, they know they must self-destruct theirs, and we supposedly will do the same.

Of course, if the missiles do hit us, well, then we have no way of self-destructing ours.

The US has been putting an enormous amount of pressure on the EU directly to produce harsh sanctions against Russia, but even the US's most staunch ally in Europe; the UK, is very nervous about "going all the way" and all but shutting down trade with Russia.

The UN vote was a PR stunt. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, so the UN is castrated before the diplomats even have their first cup of coffee. The real sanctions will come when the EU finally admits that Russia isn't leaving Crimea, a

Wipe out its major cities, and whatever functioning infrastructure remains, it will be heavily damaged and the Russian state will be compromised. Hitler almost managed it, but didn't have the resources to pull it off. Even with Russia's natural protections, Germany came damned close to driving the Soviet regime east of the Urals.

All these war games were played out half a century ago. In an open exchange of ICBMs, both countries, and pretty much everyone in between, gets all but wiped out. That the Russian leadership might hole up in some Siberian outpost is a given, but by the same token the Continental US is a big fucking place too, and you don't think the plans are still on the books to move the Executive, Judicial and enough for the Legislative for a quorum to some undisclosed location?

A major nuclear exchange between Russia and the US would be catastrophic for both countries, and I doubt whatever crawled out of the glowing rubble of such an exchange would much resemble the two nations that went in.

Stalin managed lots of things; like selling Germany steel up until the morning of the German invasion. Churchill famously reminded Stalin of this fact when Stalin went into one of his infamous telegraph tirades demanding more of the Arctic convoys shipping materials from the US and Canada to Britain be redirected to Russia.

Russia did not survive WWII all on its own. It too was a beneficiary of Western aid; both directly via Lend Lease, as well as aid in gaining control of the Trans-Iranian Railroad, and ultimately opening the Second Front with the Normandy Invasion, which finally forced Germany into the nightmare two-front war.

Russia has never been as invincible as it liked to portray itself. Even when it ultimately drove out invaders, the costs were massive.

Relax. Russia is no problem. That's more for internal use than external use. I mean, ponder what it would be like if the US were in Russia's boots.

The country "lost" the cold war, depression sets in, crime lords get rich and take over economy and partly politics, the general population is doing worse and worse... I think it's not hard to see how a lot of people are yearning for the "good ol' times" where Russia was some big shot country.

Now ponder what it would be like if this was the US, and how a president could score with the lowbrow rednecks and of course the military with some speeches about greatness and how we can snuff out that big bad enemy of the days of yore.

Saber rattling with respect to what's going on on the Crimea peninsula, but little substance.

No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.

Or GW Bush. After all, he "... looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.
"I was able to get a sense of his soul." Guess he missed something there.

I would be surprised if someone like Rush Limbaugh hasn't said something similar about Russia on their US based cable/radio news programs in the past few weeks. I'm sure both of our nations have their own crackpot news agencies.

The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

I would say that one of the major problems of having state-controlled media is having too few people determining the content. In that sense, at least, shows like Limbaugh's suffer from the same problem.

Of course the main problem is that in places with strong state-media there is typically no mainstream alternative, which makes dissent or even mild criticism of the regime very difficult to get across.

But actually, in that sense, most media outlets that are more or less partisan have a similar problem -- as l

When speaking with an Egyptian co-worker (a Christian who finally got the rest of his family out of Egypt only recently) he had remarked that the reason that most people in the world take what Americans say on television so seriously because in most of the world (Egypt for example) you cannot say things on television that the State doesnt agree with without getting into serious trouble, so they myopically assume that the same must also be true in America. If Timmy Talking Head says that he hates Muslims on American T.V, and the American government didnt arrest him immediately, then most of the world assumes that the official State position of America must be to hate Muslims.

Now here we have some myopic American assuming that the rest of the worlds media is just like American media. Its not.

Now as far as Putin, NPR recently had an interview with chess Grand Master Gary Kasparov who has for a long time been outspoken against Putin. He pointed out that the KGB had a file on Putin long before he became the glorious leader which included a personality profile. The KGB had determined that Putin had an unusually low sense of danger, the kind of guy that thinks he can get away with just about anything, and that might include launching a nuclear first strike against America.

The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

Wait - you believe that something being said on state owned TV station is in the name of government and entire country?

What is wrong with you people?

You probably never lived in a country with 'state owned TV' if you can make statements this retarded. Sigh.

For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc. We cannot realistically or morally change Russia from the outside. The most powerful weapon against fanaticism would be allowing regular law-abiding Russians to vote with their feet. We could always use some more scientists and engineers anyway...

a fake vote where supposedly all the ukrainians and tatars also wanted to join Russia. Ya right. 97% approval is the kind of election result dictatorships produce, honest elections never get that result. Support for separation was 40%, so its a total lie that suddenly everyone wants separation.

Keep in mind that the new Ukrainian government has announced massive austerity program. Pensions in Russia are about four times higher and the economy is much healthier compared to the Ukraine. Besides, massive economic support was promised by Russia.

To be fair support for separation was higher (roughly 50%) but support for joining Russia was only 41% before Putin's thugs turned up armed and en-masse to rig the vote.

You're right though, the referendum was a joke, I don't even know why dictators like Putin do this, you'd think if you're going to rig a vote you at least make it semi-believable at like 60% or something, but really, 97%, are they actually trying to take the piss or what? 82% turnout and 97% vote for joining Russia does indeed imply that Ukrainians and Tatars that are almost universally opposed to joining Russia voted for exactly that. This alone shows what an absolute complete and utter farce it was.

As if the hijacking of all Crimean comms in and out, radio, TV, and surrounding of military bases and refusal to allow international observers in whilst beating up journalists wasn't obvious evidence enough that a fraudulent vote was about to follow. I'm not sure who exactly they're trying to convince short of the few useful idiots that are dotted about here and there, but what do they matter? It's almost like they're just trying to convince themselves they're doing the right thing, as it sure as hell ain't convincing anyone else that matters.

It's not as simple as that: most Ukrainian people, especially the elderly are very likely to have voted in Russia's favour. Not only because they were living side by side with Russians and are nostalgic for the good ol' times, but also because of the pensions which are about four times higher in Russia. The right-wing radicals that are very vocal among the Ukrainian government gave a strong trump to Russia as well.

As for Tatars: Tatarstan's president (federal Republic in Russian Federation) was in Crimea promoting tolerance to Russians. He is well respected among the Tatar community and was busy explaining that Tatars and Russians can indeed live peacefully together. Plus the above-mentioned economic factor. Of all groups, the Tatars are, of course, most opposed to the Russians, but you won't feed your family with politics alone.

The reasons are historical (Crimea is to 60% populated by ethnic Russians), political (a very stupid move by the coup leaders to revoke Russian language's regional status) and economical (Ukraine is bankrupt with massive social cuts pending while Russia is looking much better in comparison due to oil and gas exports). The latter is the decisive factor: the population on Crimea has seen for a long time that sailors and officers on Russian ships which are stationed there earned more money than their Ukrainian

for many years. The writing has been on the wall all the time. Those idiotic threats are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be wrong to downplay them with the arguments like "some idiot lost his nerves". The bellicosity has been on the rise in Russia for many years and no, the reason is not that they were unjustly insulted by the West. The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

Well, international relations are heating up again, coffee-break is over and the West should better wake up and start doing something. If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

Agreed. Putin is basically doing "blitzkrieg" on the world political stage and currently has the ball. He's constantly been referring to "the situation in Ukraine" and "the situation in Crimea" as being something that justifies the actions of "pro-russian militias" (note: the Kremlin denies that they have any direct control over the troops occupying Crimea, officially they're supposed to be militias regradles of the fact that they're using equipment thus far only seen in service with the Russian special forces). Putin's playing the victim card to the west, and the nationalistic chest-beating "for the motherland" -card to his own citizens - all the while giving a strong signal to people like me living next to his country (in my case Finland) that any Russian promises regarding the respect for international law and sovereignty are better used as toilet paper.

West should better wake up and start doing something.

Yes.

If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

The west does not need to accumulate power. The west (that is the US/NATO) already controls the largest military force in the history of mankind. We have power, we need the will to use it. If we let this slip Russia will keep chiseling ex-USSR nations piece by piece using the same lame "we're just protecting out citizens" -excuse as the west re-enacts the 30s and tries to appease a man who clearly doesn't give a shit about talk. The west can "condemn" the actions as many times and as "harshly" as we want, but until a line is drawn and it is made clear to Russia that the crossing of this line will lead to military action, Putin will keep controlling the ball.

Next up: Russians "deport" American astronauts from ISS, as they are the only country with a manned space flight program. How ironic; we spend many billions to build it, and then scrap our only way of getting to it. Nice plan. No wonder USA is number 37.

Someday USA might be a great country, but this decade and the next is not that day.

USA is now filled with religious, science-denying blowhards that will turn this country into a backwater 3rd world with nuclear weapons and offshore billionaires that own the government. Just look at Greenspan's comments. We'll all be shooting each other for food in a few years, while CEOs sit on piles of cash that guarantee they are comfortable for 6 or 7 generations.

There were those of us who fought against this. But in the end, we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. And at the same time, our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our Doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a Doomsday gap.

The US invaded Iraq without UN approval and with false proof (remember the WMD) to "liberate" it. Now Russia does the same with Crimea, only the proof is much more valid, even if this poll was a complete farce. What's new?

Disclaimer: I'm EU citizen and totally against all this idiotic behavior. But let's be honest - the US has no moral standing in cases like this anymore, even if Obama is not to blame for Iraq. And the EU, well, they simply have no backbone in foreign policy.

This obsession with "moral standing" is ludicrous. Do you think the British Empire had heap loads of moral standing on September 1, 1939? Do you think the US and the USSR had barrels of "moral standing" hanging around when they joined the fight against the Nazis?

Nations do shit things, sometimes for perceived benefit, or simply out of greed. If we allowed every ill actions we had done in the past hold us back, no one would ever intervene when some other nation state violated the general rules of international conduct?

Russia signed an agreement in the 1990s guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpiles. Thus, even excluding any notions of territorial integrity that have been a part of international law since the end of WWII, Russia is in violation of its own treaty with Ukraine.

So yes, it sucks ass that the US invaded Iraq, but do you seriously want the US to sit in the corner and refuse to come out when Russia starts enlarging itself with trumped up referendums, because a decade ago it did a naughty thing?

Double standards are what they are. Whether you, Russia or the King of Jupiter like it or not, it is not in anyone but Russia's best interests to have it absorbing up chunks of Eastern Europe based on the same flimsy arguments that Germany put forward over the Sudetenland seventy five years ago.

Moral standing arguments are nothing more than thinly veiled arguments to sit on our hands and do nothing. Well fuck you and fuck the double standard. Russia should be put under crippling sanctions, its foreign asset

Slashdot has gotten so soft, so much like reddit and other useless sites.
It pains me to see the decline after so many years.
Food is relevant to nerds, so why not cooking news? Best way to arrange you star wars underwear?
All these new useless users make me sick.

I don't really view this as troll. Certainly Russia has its share of responsibility, however, since the fall of the Soviet Union. The "West" has been deliberately acting in a way that would seem provocative from a Russian perspective. We keep adding NATO member closer to Russia's borders, despite the promises we made to Russia after the fall. We've expanded missile defense equipment to many of these countries. We have NGOs working on our behalf trying to establish pro-West leaders in the Ukraine, Imagine how the US would feel if Russia was trying to put a pro-Russian candidate in Mexico?

Why do people keep saying that only a 100% effective missile defense system is acceptable? Why is 50% not acceptable? MIRV ICBM's are no different for launch and mid stage interceptors, the thing we put all of our effort into. The Russians have ~350 ICBM's, we should have 5x as many interceptors that are designed for each stage. These can be capable on subs launched ICBM's as well, its just a matter of investment. I would be very happy to have a even a 20% success rate from a missile defense system in an al

Why not post Sarah Palin's "bold and insightful predictions" that Putin might invade Ukraine while you're at it? Russia isn't the same country any more. This wasn't an invasion of Poland. This is Russia dicking around in their own backyard like they've been doing the last 10 years or so. Russia doesn't have the money to be a world power any more.

All we're doing by talking him up is getting him more confident in what he thinks he can get away with based on his limited resources. If it goes to the mat, the US and Europe could squash this with sanctions, but Europe is going to have to nut up and accept some economic hardship to make it happen.

The are a number of questions about the validity of the vote. Considering Crimea's ethnic makeup, 95% approval seems a questionable number. No international observers of any note during a referendum that carves out a chunk of a sovereign state. A sovereign state, I might add, that Russia itself guaranteed the territorial integrity of in the 1990s.

If Russia gets away with this, it will essentially mean that anywhere in Europe where there is an ethnic Russian population of any note, the country in question wi